A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.

Thursday, 31 January 2013

Will the government’s “equal marriage” proposals strengthen marriage or undermine the institution of marriage?

When it published the Marriage (same-sex couples) Bill, the government issued a document claiming that criticisms of the proposals were "myths".

Here, SPUC responds to the government’s attempts to rebut the arguments against redefining marriage:

The government’s assertions

"MYTH: Allowing same-sex couples to marry will destroy the institution of marriage.
REALITY: Marriage is a hugely important institution in this country. The principles of long-term commitment and responsibility which underpin it bind society together and make it stronger. The Government believes that we should not prevent people getting married unless there are very good reasons – and loving someone of the same sex is not one of them."

SPUC Comment:
SPUC’s leaflet on same-sex marriage urges people: “Don’t let politicians destroy real marriage.” What makes marriage special and unique is that a man and woman can form a special union suited to conceiving and raising children. The long-term commitment and responsibility of marriage are merely conditions of forming that special union. Children have a right to know and be cared for by their mother and father, hence the need for the permanent exclusive nature of marriage.

Historically, the State has recognised this. There is no rationale for a same-sex couples to ‘marry’ and no requirement for the State to recognise such a ‘marriage’ (and, of course, the Government does not say why polygamists or siblings are not included in ‘equal marriage’ if same-sex couples are). By re-defining marriage in the way proposed the Government is transforming civil marriage into a mere contract for cohabitation.

The government’s assertions:
“MYTH: Marriage has not changed in hundreds of years.
REALITY: Marriage is not static. It has always been an evolving institution. In the 19th century inequalities prevented Catholics, atheists, Baptists and many others from marrying except in the Anglican Church. In the 20th century the law was changed to recognise married men and married women as equal before law. Opening up marriage to all couples will strengthen the vital institution of marriage, and help ensure that it remains an essential building block of society.”

SPUC Comment:
Legalising same-sex marriage radically alters the civil recognition of the essential nature of marriage – which is heterosexual. In contrast, the 19th and 20th century changes referred to did not radically undermine this essential nature.

The government says: “Opening up marriage to all couples will strengthen the vital institution of marriage.” But firstly, reducing all marriage to contractual cohabitation does nothing to strengthen it. Nor does it assist children because marriage, not contractual cohabitation, is their best protection. Secondly, there is no credible evidence that the decline in couples marrying can be slowed down or reversed by extending it to same-sex couples.

What we have seen around the world is same-sex marriage being introduced either as part of a general decline in marriage (which however could still decline much further) or where marriage is already in deep decline, in the context of a general libertarianism which trivialises and is fundamentally hostile to marriage. Marriage in Scandinavia, for example, is already in deep decline. There is not the slightest evidence that SSM has ‘strengthened’ real marriage.

The government’s assertions:
“MYTH: Religious organisations or minister of religion will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages.
REALITY: This is not true. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill makes clear that no religious organisation or religious minister will be compelled to marry same-sex couples. A ‘quadruple lock’ of legal protections will ensure that all religious organisations are free to choose and can act according to their doctrines and beliefs.
MYTH: The European Court of Human Rights will force religious organisations to conduct same-sex marriages.
REALITY: The case law of the European Court of Human Rights makes it clear that same-sex marriage is a matter for individual states to decide. Any case before the Court would be brought against the UK Government, not a religious organisation. The Court would be bound to give priority to the rights of a religious organisation under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion.“

SPUC Comment:
A legal expert, Aidan O’Neill QC of Matrix Chambers, has produced the following Advice regarding the scenario of a same-sex couple refused a Church of England wedding who wish to sue the clergyman and church under the Equality Act 2010, alleging discrimination on grounds of sex and sexual orientation.

“In the scenario outlined above, given that sex/gender and sexual orientation are protected characteristics against discrimination recognised in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, a same sex couple would have a properly arguable claim before the Strasbourg Court that any national legislation which purports to allow to the established church a blanket exemption from any claims of discrimination (whether on grounds of the sexual orientation of the parties or the sex/gender of one of them) in the provision of (marriage) services which the established church is otherwise obliged by law to make available to the general public (regardless of whether those individuals are members of the established church) is Convention incompatible.” (See: c4m.org.uk/downloads/legalopinionsummary.pdf)

The government’s assertions:
“MYTH: The Church of England and Church in Wales were not consulted properly.
REALITY: During the course of both the consultation and the drafting of the legislation, the Government has had numerous and detailed discussions with stakeholders about the provisions within the Bill. These discussions have included a number of religious organisations including the Church of England, the Catholic Church and the Church in Wales.”

SPUC Comment:
The only consultation has been of the meaningless type where the Government announces in advance that it will, whatever the cost to - or views of - the people, churches etc. push through same-sex marriage, though it will listen to views as to how to ‘implement’ this.

The government’s assertions:
“MYTH: Teachers will have to promote same-sex marriage to pupils in sex and relationships education.
REALITY: This is not true. No teacher will be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs. As with any other area of the curriculum teachers will of course be required to teach the factual position, that under the law marriage can be between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. …… Sex and relationships education is categorically not about the promotion of a particular sexual orientation - that would be inappropriate teaching.”

SPUC Comment:
Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary, has said, “Teachers will continue to be able to describe their own belief that marriage is between a man and a woman while, importantly, acknowledging that there can also be same-sex marriages.” Where does this leave a teacher who shares the conviction that same-sex ‘marriage’ really is not marriage? Can he or she tell pupils that although the law permits it, “same-sex marriage” is a counterfeit?

The Minister for Women and Equalities, Helen Grant, has spelt out the consequences for teachers (see following comment).

The government’s assertions:
“MYTH: Teachers who oppose same-sex marriage will be sacked from their jobs.
REALITY: Teachers will continue to have the clear right to express their own beliefs, or that of their faith in a professional way, such as that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. No teacher will be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs.”

SPUC Comment:
Helen Grant, Women and Equalities minister at the DCMS, in a letter dated 19th October 2012 concedes that “It will always be a matter for the head to determine what teachers under his control should be teaching and he/she will have a range of disciplinary measures at their disposal if they are needed including ultimately dismissal.”

The government’s assertions:
“MYTH: This is the thin end of the wedge – further changes to the law to enable other groups to marry are likely.
REALITY: This is simply not the case - we have absolutely no plans to amend the law on marriage in any other area.”

SPUC Comment:
What the Government ‘plans’ (and they have been known to change plans!) is not the point. The rationale that justifies same-sex marriage can also justify other forms of ‘marriage’ and by legalising same–sex marriage one lays oneself open to reasonable objections from other groups with regard to discrimination. Having got rid of the rationale of marriage supported by the State – the life-giving, child-centred nature of the institution – how will the Government defend itself against the claims of other unions to be recognised? The government’s assertions:
“MYTH: You did not take into account the large number of petitions received opposing a change in the law.
REALITY: 228,000 individuals and organisations responded to the consultation on how to open up marriage to same-sex couples. Additionally there were petitions for and against equal marriage. The largest was from the Coalition for Marriage against the proposals which contained over 500,000 signatures opposed to the proposals. The views expressed in the petitions were considered along with all the other responses received. However, the Government have always been clear that the consultation was focused on how to implement a change in the law, rather than whether to change the law.”

SPUC Comment:
Note this last point – about the aim of the consultation – and compare the following -

The government’s assertions:
“MYTH: The Government has no mandate to introduce same-sex marriage.
REALITY: The Conservative Party’s Contract for Equalities, published alongside its General Election Manifesto in 2010, set out clearly that we would consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage. Independent surveys, such as the one carried out by the Times in March 2012, show support by the general public with 65% thinking gay couples should have an equal right to marry, not just to have civil partnerships.”

SPUC Comment:
- the Government admit that their consultation exercise was about “how to implement a change in the law,” but the mandate they claim for doing so was to “consider the case for changing the law”. When did the idea of considering the case for changing the law become a matter of “how” (not whether) to do so?

The government’s assertions:
“MYTH: People will be sacked if they criticise same-sex marriage at work.
REALITY: This is not true. We have always been absolutely clear that being able to follow your faith openly is a vital freedom that we will protect. Everyone is entitled to express their view about same-sex marriage, at work or elsewhere. No employee will be required to promote or endorse views about same-sex marriage which go against their conscience. But it is an entirely different matter to act in an offensive or discriminatory way because of someone’s sexual orientation and the two issues should not be confused.“
“MYTH: The four recent European Court cases show that people are not free to follow their beliefs at work.
REALITY: On the contrary, Ms Eweida won her right to wear a cross at work. These cases were not about same-sex marriage. However, we have always been absolutely clear that being able to follow your faith openly is a vital freedom that we will protect. We believe people should be able to wear discrete religious symbols, provided it doesn't hinder or physically get in the way of their job. In the other cases the Court found that the needs of health and safety and the requirement not to discriminate against customers were relevant considerations, on the facts of those particular cases – it is all about striking a sensible balance, which our legislation does.”

SPUC Comment:
One of the ‘other cases’ referred to relates to a registrar’s refusal to act as a ‘civil partnership registrar’ (a re-designation of her role forced upon her by Islington Council in light of the 2004 Civil Partnership Act). In other words, the case is highly relevant for what the Government says about same-sex marriage legislation (a Government that itself admits there is little difference between civil partnerships and marriage).
The lady in question, Lillian Ladele, has a well-grounded conscientious objection to performing civil partnership ceremonies but, in the words of the ECHR judges who disagreed the majority verdict in the case,

“a combination of back-stabbing and blinkered political correctness of the Borough of Islington (which clearly favoured ‘gay rights’ over fundamental human rights) eventually led to her dismissal.”

The dissenting judges go on to point out that:

“the issue in Ms Ladele’s case is not one of discrimination by an employer, a public authority or a public official vis-a-vis a service user of the Borough of Islington because of the said service-user’s sexual orientation. Indeed, no service user or prospective service user of the Borough seems to have ever complained (unlike some of her homosexual colleagues) about the third applicant [Ms Ladele]. The complainant is not a party or prospective party to a same-sex civil partnership...No balancing exercise can, therefore, be carried out between the third applicant’s concrete right to conscientious objection, which is one of the most fundamental rights inherent in the human person – a right which is not given by the Convention but is recognised and protected by it – and a legitimate State or public authority policy which seeks to protect rights in the abstract...Ms Ladele did not fail in her duty of discretion: she did not publicly express her beliefs to service users. Her beliefs had no impact on the content of her job, but only on its extent. She never attempted to impose her beliefs on others, nor was she in any way engaged, openly or surreptitiously, in subverting the rights of others.”

Nevertheless, this woman was sacked from her job, a job she took on before Civil Partnership legislation was even envisaged. The majority in the ECHR rejected her appeal and the Government say that her case had a reasonable outcome. This shows clearly that people are not free to follow their beliefs at work and that same-sex marriage legislation will lead to the persecution of those who object to it. See also Aidan O’Neill QC on related cases: c4m.org.uk/downloads/legalopinionsummary.pdf

The government’s assertions:
“MYTH: The Trafford Housing case with Adrian Smith shows that people can be sacked because of their religious beliefs.
REALITY: Adrian Smith actually won his case in the High Court, a judgment which shows that expressing views about this type of issue in a measured and non-offensive manner does not permit an employer to discipline an employee. Any such action by an employer would be unlawful.”

SPUC Comment:
Not mentioned is the fact that Mr Smith was reduced to penury and received almost no financial compensation (he had expressed what was at one time David Cameron’s opinion re gay weddings in church).

The government’s assertions:
“MYTH: Local councils will stop giving religious groups contracts or letting them use their facilities if they refuse to conduct same-sex marriages.
REALITY: This is not true. The Equality Act 2010 protects people from being discriminated against because of religious belief. Treating someone in this way because of their religious opposition to same-sex marriage would be unlawful discrimination. It would also be a misuse of the council’s powers if it penalised a religious body for doing something which is lawful.”
“MYTH: This Bill is being rushed through Parliament and has not been properly thought through.
REALITY: This is untrue. The Government is committed to introducing same-sex marriage and published a consultation in March 2012 which resulted in the biggest ever response to a UK consultation. The Minister for Women and Equalities made a statement to the house in December 2012 announcing the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation.”

SPUC Comment:
The Government has expressed its determination to push this bill through Parliament, and all the signs (the ‘dodge’ with the manifesto, the ‘how not whether’ consultation, and the late publication of the bill) indicate that the government does not want to allow the host of objections to the proposals to stop it.

The government’s assertions:
“MYTH: Polling shows that the public is not supportive of this policy.
REALITY: This is untrue. Recent polling shows that there are a range of views on this subject. We know that there are many people who are in favour of and supportive of this policy, as shown by 53% of people who responded to our consultation.”

SPUC Comment:
The Government did not ensure that the consultation was strictly monitored, and therefore the consultation responses cannot be taken as representative. Furthermore, they do not count the C4M petition which has over 600,000 signatories: far more than any petition supporting the changes.

Wednesday, 30 January 2013

Maria Miller, the government's equalities minister, blogged on Friday on the government's assurances regarding conscientious objection to same-sex marriage. Here is what she wrote about schools:

"There has been some debate about how this Bill will affect teachers and teaching about marriage in schools. Let me make it absolutely clear, that teachers will continue to have the clear right to express in a professional way their own beliefs, or that of their faith, such as that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No teacher will be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs. As with any area of the curriculum, teachers will of course be required to teach the factual position that under the law, marriage can be between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. But, of course they will not be required to promote same-sex marriage, and neither will we be bringing in new powers to sack teachers who disagree with same-sex marriage. There are already many subjects which need to be taught carefully, particularly in faith schools – divorce, for example. The guidance governing these issues is the same guidance that will govern how same sex-marriage is handled. And equally, parents will continue to have the right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons that they do not consider appropriate."

SPUC is continuing to respond to the detail of the government's assurances, such as in our letter to headteachers and in forthcoming documents. What is also needed, however, is a historical perspective on the reliability of assurances given to Parliament. Here are but three examples:

In 1967, Parliament was told that the Abortion Act would not lead to mass abortion or to abortion on demand. Today, there are 200,000 abortions annually, almost all authorised with little or no question.

In 1990, Parliament was told that an abortion on the grounds that the unborn child had a cleft palate would never be allowed. Today abortions on that ground are performed every year.

In 1994, the Sunday Trading Act was passed following assurances that no one would be forced to work on a Sunday. Last month the High Court ruled that Christians have no right to refuse to work on Sundays.

Now let us look at what the senior figures of the three main parties have said in the recent past about homosexuality and schools. Here is what David Cameron, now Prime Minister but then Leader of the Opposition, said during an interview with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight on 23 April 2010:

Paxman: "You're in favour of faith schools being able to teach sex education as they like".

Cameron:"Not as they like. That's not right. What we voted for was what the government suggested in the end, which is proper sex education..."

Paxman: "Should they be free to teach that homosexuality is wrong, abortion is wrong, contraception is wrong?"

Cameron: "No, and the government discussed this and came up with a good idea, which is to say that we wanted a clearer path of sexual education across all schools, but faith schools were not given any exemption but they were able to reflect some of their own faith in the way that this was taught. But no, you must teach proper lessons in terms of gay equality and also combat homophobic bullying in schools, I think that's extremely important."

Mr Cameron is the most high-profile and powerful politician to make clear that same-sex marriage is essential for 'gay equality'. Therefore it is clear that, for Mr Cameron, "proper sex education" and "proper lessons in terms of gay equality" means forbidding schools from teaching that homosexual marriage is wrong, including because homosexuality is wrong.

Nick Clegg, then only leader of the Liberal Democrats but now also Deputy Prime Minister, was reported by The Independent newspaper on 13 January 2010 to have told Attitude, the homosexual magazine, that all schools, including faith schools, should be forced to teach that homosexuality is "normal and harmless". Interestingly, The Independent also reported that:

"the Tories are unlikely to give full marital rights to gay couples."

And if the Labour party were to lead the government after the 2015 election, we have an indication of what will happen from the comments of Ed Balls, then Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families:

"... Does [Mr Balls] agree with Nick Clegg that faith schools should be forced to teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless? The answer is yes."
[Balls]: "If their faith has a view in scripture, they can inform pupils of that. What they must not do is teach discrimination. They must be absolutely clear about the importance of civil partnerships [and that] bullying of homosexuals is wrong ..." .

"[S]chools cannot just ignore these issues or teach only one side of the argument. They also have to teach that there are different views on homosexuality. They cannot teach homophobia. They must explain civil partnership ... [Catholic schools] cannot teach that homosexuality is wrong and that therefore it is OK to discriminate on homosexuality ..."

"[S]tatutory lessons on sex and relationship education...includes education about contraception and the importance of stable relationships, including marriage and civil partnerships. It will not allow the teaching of homophobia. All maintained schools and academies will be required to teach the full programmes of study. This includes promoting equality and encouraging acceptance of diversity ... The bottom line is that...discrimination is prevented in all schools."

Thus we know what our political leaders want and where they are leading us. The Government's latest assurances regarding same-sex marriage are empty.

Tuesday, 29 January 2013

The
government's bill to legalise so-called “same-sex marriage” was
launched on 24 January. This will result in a legal redefinition of
marriage, setting English law at odds with the timeless and universal
social and religious conception of marriage. The critical Second Reading
will be on Tuesday 5 February. For the sake of tomorrow’s children, we
must persuade as many MPs as possible to vote against it.

Please write, phone or email your MP and ask him/her to oppose the marriage bill at its Second Reading.

Ask your friends and relatives and pro-life contacts to do the same.

Action timeline:

Wed 30 Jan to Fri 1 Feb: Write to your MP, asking him/her to oppose
the government’s marriage bill (It will be too late to post letters or
postcards to MPs after Friday 1st, so we must ask people to telephone or
send an email to their MP at this stage.)

Last
week the Catholic Bishops in England and Wales launched an excellent
postcard campaign providing postcards for people to send to MPs calling
on them to “Speak Out for Marriage,” and SPUC has encouraged people to
support this initiative. However, the Second Reading date was
subsequently announced at very short notice, so we must now asking
people to telephone or email MPs to make sure they get the message
before 5 February. The postcard campaign can still be helpful, but
phoning or emailing MPs is most urgent. More information about the
Bishops’ postcard campaign can be found on the Bishops’ website: http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/Home/Featured/Speak-Out-For-Marriage

Please
encourage young people (16+) to come to SPUC's 6th International
Pro-Life Youth Conference, the only pro-life conference of its kind in
the UK. This conference has proven a huge success every year and has
made an important contribution to renewed pro-life efforts by young
people around the country. This weekend conference has been a place
where the seed for new pro-life groups has been sown and new friendships
forged. SPUC has ensured an exciting line-up of expert speakers in
their respective fields, along with fun evening entertainment. This is
an event not to be missed!

Do you know young people, aged 16 years and above, who would like to attend this conference?

It
will take place at the Hayes Conference Centre, Swanwick, Derbyshire.
The cost for the weekend, which includes all conference fees, meals and
accommodation, is £100.

Monday, 28 January 2013

MPs must reject government bill vandalising marriage
Members of Parliament must reject the government's same-sex marriage bill, as it will "vandalise" marriage. SPUC made the call following the announcement that the bill will be debated in Parliament on Tuesday 5 February, at '2nd reading' (the first main debate on a bill). Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, said: "The bill is wrong in principle and must be stopped now. We urge people to contact their MPs immediately to ask them to attend the 2nd reading debate and vote the bill down." [SPUC, 24 January]

Friday, 25 January 2013

Comment on behalf of the Bishops by Archbishop Peter Smith, Vice President of the Bishops Conference of England and Wales:

“It is deeply regrettable but not unexpected that the Government has chosen to proceed with introducing a Bill to change the definition of marriage. Alongside many people of all faiths and none we will be vigorously opposing the Bill.

Marriage has an identity distinct from any other relationship, no matter how much love or commitment may be involved. Marriage is and always has been the union of one man and one woman, for love and mutual support, open to procreation. Marriage has, over the centuries, been the enduring public recognition of this commitment and it has rightly been recognised as unique and worthy of legal protection. It furthers the common good of society because it promotes a unique relationship which benefits children. The fundamental problem with the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is that it will radically alter the meaning of marriage for everyone and therefore undermine the common good. This is what is at stake. The Bill also raises very serious questions especially about religious freedom and freedom of expression, the effect on teaching in schools, and the work of chaplains and others with religious convictions involved in the delivery of public services.

There is no electoral mandate for this Bill and last year’s consultation process was shambolic. We welcome the promise of a free vote for MPs, and hope the Bill will be defeated. We will be producing a briefing on the Bill once we have studied it in detail with our legal advisers.”

The government's same-sex marriage bill has been published today. The critical Second Reading date has been announced: Tuesday 5 February. We must persuade MPs to vote against it.

Urgent action is therefore needed - not least, this weekend in churches throughout Britain.

a) Please write, phone or email your MP and ask him/her to oppose the bill on 5 February. It is also very important to ask your MP to oppose the “programme motion” (which seeks to limit debate on the bill). Ask your friends and relatives and pro-life contacts to do the same.

b) Support the Catholic Bishops’ “Speak Out for Marriage” postcard campaign

Archbishop Peter Smith has launched a campaign asking people to sign a postcard and send it to their MP. The postcard is headed: “Speak Out for Marriage”, and asks MPs to oppose the redefinition of marriage. Archbishop Smith has sent supplies of the cards to all parishes in England and Wales. (These should reach parishes by Saturday 26 January.)

Please help your local churches distribute the cards this weekend (26/27 January). They could help to influence MPs before the second reading on 5 February. However, next weekend will probably be too late to post the cards to MPs before 5 February, so next weekend, please ask people to telephone or email their MP on Monday 4 or on Tuesday 5 Feb (the votes will be at about 7pm). People can still send the postcards, but they are not likely to reach MPs before the votes.

SPUC wrote to priests (on 23 Jan) in support of the “Speak Out for Marriage” postcards. This is how we suggest the campaign should be organised:

Hand cards to mass-goers as they arrive for Sunday mass.

Priests celebrating mass speak about the importance of defending marriage and of the bishops’ postcard campaign in their homily or at another appropriate moment.

The name of the local MP (or MPs) should be mentioned.

Pens & stamps – providing pens for people to fill in the postcards before they leave church, and stamps they can purchase to post them will encourage people to act.

If this is not possible, please strongly urge people to post the postcards to their MP immediately upon returning home.

Further details about the postcard are available at: http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/Home/Featured/Speak-Out-For-Marriage

Thursday, 24 January 2013

For my Catholic and Orthodox visitors, in particular here's an important message from Kevin Rowles:

"Dear Friends ... Regarding the Government’s proposal to introduce legislation for same-sex marriage. It seems that the threat grows. [See my post today reporting on the government's publication of the bill tomorrow]. The second reading of the government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) bill will be on February 5th. Prayer is needed. Don’t forget that the Feast of the Purification on Feb 2nd is also the Feast of Our Lady of Good Success (a devotion with full ecclesiastical approval) – please try to make the novena in preparation, from Thurs 24th Jan to 1st Feb and include the same-sex marriage threat intention in the novena, or make the novena specifically for that intention. Our Lady of Good Success promised particular graces and helps for those who invoke Her under this title, in these times. Regarding the threat to the Sacrament of Marriage in our times, Our Lady said:- “The sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with the Church, will be thoroughly attacked and profaned. Masonry, then reigning, will implement iniquitous laws aimed at extinguishing this sacrament.”

Novena to Our Lady of Good Success

Hail Mary, Most Holy, Beloved Daughter of God the Father,

through the intercession of Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres,

grant Thy good success to this request (name your request)

~ Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be ~

St Michael, pray for us

Hail Mary, Most Holy, Admirable Mother of God the Son,

through the intercession of Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres,

grant Thy good success to this request (name your request)

~ Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be ~

St Gabriel, pray for us

Hail Mary, Most Holy, Most Faithful Spouse of God the Holy Ghost,

through the intercession of Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres,

grant Thy good success to this request (name your request)

~ Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be ~

St Raphael, pray for us

Hail Mary, Most Holy Temple

and Sacrarium of the Most Holy Trinity,

St Michael, St Gabriel, St Raphael, pray for us

Our Lady of Good Success, Thou who art the all-powerful intercessor before the Most Holy Trinity, deign to hear and answer my request,

so long as it contributes to the salvation of my soul, and the glory and exaltation of our Holy Mother, the Church.

The Irish pro-life movement is currently fighting an unprecedented threat to Ireland’s pro-life laws. In this very dangerous situation, it is important for pro-life commentators to avoid explicitly defending what is in fact abortion – even as a means of preventing much more widespread abortion. Thus deliberate pre-viability inductions, for example, should not defended, least of all by Catholics, as they are squarely contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church - see my blogs:

Some Irish pro-life commentators (see examples further below) have defended, not just legitimate treatments that target the woman’s own body (like a damaged womb or fallopian tube) but deliberate pre-viability removals and even D&Cs (dilation and currettage). These latter procedures specifically target the unborn baby with its own living tissues. Their comments are partly inspired by the Irish Medical Council's guidance (see section 21.4 of Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners)

There is a real danger that such statements will result in people in Ireland being misled into explicitly endorsing defective proposals regarding abortion. There is massive opposition to changing Ireland’s abortion law; however, some Irish pro-lifers have already indicated possible support for legislation, guidelines or clarification of the law. Instead, the Irish people need to keep on saying loud and clear to their elected representatives: leave our pro-life laws alone!

Here are some examples of the worrying statements I mention above:

Dr Eoghan de Faoite, representing Youth Defence in a hearing of the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament), said:

"Irish obstetricians and other specialists will always intervene to save the life of a mother when she has a life-threatening complication of pregnancy. This practice of intervening, which includes premature delivery of the baby even when the baby has little of no chance of surviving, is permitted in Ireland today. It is permitted under Irish law and by the Medical Council's ethical guidelines and is within pro-life principles."

"As far as I can see, Galway University Hospital would have been fully within its legal rights to have induced a preterm delivery -- or foetal evacuation -- in an attempt to save both mother and child. Indeed, not merely would it have been within its rights to do so, doing so would have been normal medical practice.

This is exactly the sort of thing that Dr Berry Kiely talked about back on what was an uncommonly good Vincent Browne show back in the Spring -- you induce a preterm delivery, thus saving the mother, and you do everything you can to try to save the child. You almost certainly fail, but you try."

Catholic Comment, the Irish version of Catholic Voices (UK), issued a statement saying:

"[F]or the hospital to have induced labour with the intention of saving Savita would have been in accord both with Irish law, normal Irish medical practice, and with Catholic teaching."

And as I blogged in December Mary Kenny, outgoing Master of the Catholic Writers' Guild, wrote:

"In truth, we do not know whether a termination of her pregnancy would have saved Mrs Halappanavar’s life, but there certainly has been pressure – rightly – to clarify the situation legally so that should it arise again, doctors may perform an abortion."

“When a woman is miscarrying, there are three normal courses of action. The usual one is to let nature take its course. If nature is not taking its course quickly enough and the life of the mother is being endangered as a result of blood loss and the possibility of infection, then there are two other possible courses of action. The first is to induce labour and the second is to perform a D & C which essentially evacuates the contents of the womb, including the foetus. Why isn’t either of these two courses of action tantamount to abortion? The reason is that the intention is not to kill the baby.”

The government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) bill will be debated in Parliament on Tuesday 5 February, at '2nd reading' (the first main debate on a bill). The bill was introduced ('tabled') today and the bill's text will be published in full tomorrow (25 Jan.)

Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, told the media today:

"Throughout history the core of marriage has always been a life-giving kind of union between man and woman even when no children may result. By replacing authentic marriage with a genderless relationship, the government is vandalising a timeless institution. It is like throwing away the treasures in the National Gallery and putting up copies instead. Same-sex relationships may have some of the outward appearance of a married relationship, but they lack the orientation to conceiving and bearing children which is at the heart of natural marriage.

Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. Same-sex marriage represents an attempt to redefine marriage, thus undermining marriage. This undermining lessens the protection for unborn children which true marriage provides.

We call upon MPs not to be distracted by government claims that churches and conscientious objectors to same-sex marriage will be safeguarded under the bill. Both legal opinions and previous rulings suggest that such safeguards are likely to be ruled discriminatory by the courts. The bill is wrong in principle and must be stopped now."

We urge people to contact their MPs immediately to ask them to attend the 2nd reading debate and vote the bill down."

Saturday, 19 January 2013

On Thursday Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, debated live on ITV's This Morning programme (pictured right) on the question of whether same-sex marriage should be taught in schools. The debate was in response to SPUC's letter to headteachers on the subject. You can watch the debate again on the ITV Player until Wednesday 23 January. As you will see, Anthony held his ground though outnumbered three-to-one. At one point in the debate, the viewers' poll was 80% for and 20% against teaching gay marriage in schools, but by the end the gap had narrowed to 60% - 40%. I'm very proud of Anthony's effective witness.

Thursday, 17 January 2013

Here is an important press release from SPUC's colleagues Ireland United for Life:

"Ireland United for Life welcomes the statement from Archbishop Brown, Papal Nuncio to Ireland, who states that; “2013 is an incredibly important one for the sanctity of human life in Ireland and in other nations as well. People of conscience from all religions and from no religion need to work vigorously and courageously to protect and nurture human life from conception to natural death."

It is now clear that political parties and party leaders cannot be trusted to keep their pre election promises. Pro life people must unite to protect life from the moment of conception. Ireland United for Life is clear in that there must be no legislation for abortion - no deals, no more broken promises, no redefining of when life begins and no half truths.

The final day of the recent "Health hearings on abortion" was a talking shop and all about the way to introduce abortion, with all arguments against ignored and with a determination to set aside the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act. We must ask - why do those seeking to introduce abortion want to repeal the 1861 Act?

The Government does not have the legal authority to introduce legislation for abortion in Ireland

Nora Bennis, from Mothers Alliance Ireland, states that Mervin Taylor, a former Labour Minister, in the Fine Gael led Rainbow Coalition outlined the legal position in 1997 in a report to the United Nations five years after the X case Judgement. The Irish Government made it quite clear that abortion was still illegal in Ireland. Ireland's Combined Second and Third Reports under the United Nations CEDAW, introduced by Mervin Taylor, Minister for Equality and Law Reform, in February 1997, states quite clearly on page 116 that: “Abortion is prohibited in Ireland by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.”

European Life Network’s Patrick Buckley states that this very point was put to the people of Ireland in 2002 as part of the then referendum, that sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 should be repealed. The people in voting to reject the 2002 Referendum therefore clearly voted to retain sections 58 and 59 of the Act.

Anthony Murphy, editor of Catholic Voice, says that once an Act is decriminalised it will become accepted by society as normal and accepted practise, thus the occurrence of it will grow. The Irish people have always protected the most vulnerable and will never live in a society where killing is acceptable, especially of the weakest, most vulnerable and innocent members of society. "
Precious Life’s Bernadette Smyth says abortion is a criminal offence and prohibited in both the North and South of Ireland by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Life, as the Papal Nuncio has made absolutely clear, is from conception to natural death."

Wednesday, 16 January 2013

The Government has just announced that Baroness Julia Neuberger, a rabbi and former Liberal Democrat health spokesperson, has been appointed to chair the government's inquiry into the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) (see my blog last week on the LCP). This appointment is worrying. In 2011 she said in the annual Tyburn Lecture (my emphasis in bold):

“Just so everyone knows, let’s be very clear, I am not in favour of euthanasia, I am not in favour of physician-assisted suicide. I don’t think it is a good idea for our health professionals to kill their patients any more than they do accidentally, I just don’t think it is a good idea.

I do have some sympathy – and many people I think will disagree with me – I do have some sympathy with the idea that that people who are already terminally ill and finding their situation unbearable, that they should be given the wherewithal to take their own lives. I am sure that many people – those who are true Catholics will strongly disapprove of that and there are Jews who strongly disapprove of that – but I do have some sympathy because there are some people for whom actually life becomes unbearable when they can’t control the pain. I think it is the exception. All the experience where that has been tried, for instance, in Washington State in the United States has shown that when people are given the wherewithal they barely ever use it, which suggests they want the reassurance rather than the actual capacity to deal with it.”

But there are few ethical differences between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (which she claims to oppose) and suicide assisted by non-physicians (for which she expresses sympathy). In all those three categories, the intentional killing of an innocent member of the human family is brought about.

And in 2005 she voted against an anti-euthanasia amendment to the pro-euthanasia Mental Capacity Bill (now Act). The amendment would have removed the ability of attorneys to deny life-sustaining treatment to mentally-incapacitated patients.

One of the most worrying claims about the nature and operation of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) relates to euthanasia by omission (sometimes called euthanasia by neglect) - the denial of life-sustaining care (food and/or fluids) and/or reasonable medical treatment. Her vote against the amendment should disqualify her from the chairmanship of any inquiry into the LCP.

Tuesday, 15 January 2013

Below is the press release we at SPUC have just issued regarding a press conference we held in Westminster today. I hope to blog about the press conference in more detail tomorrow:Shocking impact on schools if same-sex marriage allowed, warn expertsWestminster, London, 15 January 2013: There will be a shocking impact on schools if same-sex marriage is passed into law, experts warned at Westminster press conference today.Experts on family policy, sex education and ethics agreed that schools will become a focus for the promotion of radical and explicit homosexual material to schoolchildren. In addition, same-sex marriage will be used as a reason to silence objections by teachers and parents to explicit sex education.The press conference was organised by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) www.spuc.org.uk , a leading pro-life and pro-family organisation, to launch its campaign warning headteachers about the consequences to schools of same-sex marriage (see further below for the full text of SPUC's letter to headteachers of all state-maintained secondary schools).SPUC opposes the redefinition of marriage in law to include same-sex couples, because it would undermine the true nature of marriage and thus the pro-life benefits of marriage. Marriage offers the most protective environment for both unborn and born children. SPUC also campaigns against explicit sex education because such teaching fails to reduce abortions.At today's press conference, Dr Lisa Nolland, a social historian and expert on child protection (biography below), revealed the shockingly explicit material being spread in schools by homosexual activists. She warned that such material will become entrenched and much more widely promoted in schools if same-sex marriage is allowed. Parents have been kept in the dark about the dangerous so-called sexual health information being given to their children. Dr Nolland added that in places where same-sex marriage has been enshrined, it is becoming socially unacceptable to object to the negative influence of homosexual material on young people.Dr Patricia Morgan, an expert on family policy (biography below), warned that allowing same-sex marriage would result in an increase in the sexualisation of children through current models of sex education. She said that such sexualisation had many negative health outcomes, and added that her research suggested that promoting sexual abstinence was the key component of effective sex education.Robert Harris (biography below), the author of the new book “Is there a case for same-sex marriage: questions of eligibility and consequences”, pointed out that the issue of same-sex marriage was often divorced from its wider context, which is cultural. Part of the cultural impact of same-sex marriagewill be the mainstreaming of homosexuality via the information given to children in schools.Antonia Tully, coordinator of SPUC's Safe at School campaign (biography below), highlighted SPUC's letter to headteachers, which explains how legal duties under equalities legislation mean that belief in same-sex marriage will be imposed on schools. There will be compulsory teaching of same-sex marriage, dismissal for teachers with a conscientious objection to teaching about same-sex marriage, and no opt-out for faith schools.Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education manager (biography below), predicted that there will be an increase in opposition to same-sex marriage as more teachers and parents begin to realise how the enshrining of same-sex marriage will affect what will be taught in schools regarding sexual ethics.John Smeaton, SPUC's chief executive who chaired the press conference, said that the chief goal of SPUC's activity regarding same-sex marriage was encouraging and facilitating grassroots lobbying of members of Parliament.

Biographies of speakers, SPUC press conference, 15 January 2013:
• Dr Lisa Nolland: the convenor of the Working Party on the Sexualisation of Children, Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group, Jim Dobbin MP, chair. She edited and co-authored 'God, Gays and the Church' (Latimer 2008) and researches and writes on issues of children, adolescents, sexuality and culture. She also convenes the Marriage, Sex and Culture Group of Anglican Mainstream, whose website she serves as consultant for. Lisa has worked with children and their families in a variety of educational and religious contexts over the twenty five years she has lived in this country.
• Patricia Morgan: Author of numerous books relating to family change and policy, national and international; family structure and outcomes, plus related topics like adoption and child care. Forthcoming work includes a paper and a book on Gordon Brown’s teenage pregnancy strategy. She is also completing a book on capitalism and the family, partly funded by the Atlas Foundation, USA. She has a Visiting Fellowship with the School of Humanities, Buckingham University. She takes a special interest in the impact of same-sex marriage on society.
• Robert Harris: member of the Marriage, Sex and Culture Group of Anglican Mainstream. He is the author of “Is there a case for same-sex marriage?” The first study of its kind in the UK.
• Antonia Tully: Co-ordinator of the SPUC Safe at School campaign which supports and advises parents who want to protect their children from graphic and pornographic sex education, as well as campaigning for a ban on sex education which sexualises children and usurps parents. She contributes regularly to TV and radio debates on these issues, most recently on Newsnight, opposing compulsory relationships education. She has four children at school.
• Anthony McCarthy: SPUC’s education and publications manager, and author of SPUC’s position paper on same-sex marriage http://www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/ssm201201
• John Smeaton (chairing the press conference): SPUC director and blogger http://spuc-director.blogspot.co.uk/Full text of letter to headteachers from SPUC:14 January 2013

Dear Headteacher,

Same-sex marriage: The impact on schools

On December 11 2012 the government announced the introduction of such a bill. The impact on schools has been under-reported. We wish to draw your attention to the serious issues your school will face if this bill reaches the statute book:

• Compulsory teaching of same-sex marriage
• Dismissal for teachers with a conscientious objection to teaching about same-sex marriage
• No opt-out for faith schools
• Further promotion of homosexual activity in schools
• Parents undermined.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the basis of the family, the fundamental group unit of society. Research shows overwhelmingly that children brought up by their married, opposite-sex parents do better in terms of health, happiness and education. Marriage also offers the most protective environment for unborn children.

SPUC campaigns against explicit sex education because it sexualises children and teenagers and has failed to reduce teenage pregnancies and abortions.

In connection with our concerns in this area, we are currently writing to every state-maintained secondary school in England and Wales to highlight the position of schools regarding proposals to legalise same-sex marriage, which we believe will further sexualise children and teenagers and further encourage the spread of sexually explicit material in schools.We urge all schools to oppose proposals to legalise same-sex marriage. It is important to recognise that the equal marriage proposals will have a real, significant and disturbing impact on your school, and therefore it is essential that schools express their concerns about these proposals.

Teachers will have to teach about same-sex marriage

There is no question that schools will be required to teach pupils about same-sex marriage. Schools are already clearly mandated to teach pupils about marriage. The Education Act 1996, Section 403, states that where sex education is delivered in state-maintained schools pupils must be taught about“the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children.”If the nature of marriage is redefined to include people of the same sex, pupils will have to be taught about this.

Leading QC Aidan O'Neill included this point in a legal opinion on the consequences of same-sex marriage legislation:“… if marriage is extended to include same sex couples then the Secretary of State’s Section 403(1A)(a) Guidance will require to ensure that children learn of the nature of marriage as being a commitment of two people, regardless of gender or sex, and of the importance of this, now gender-neutral institution, for family life and the bringing up of children. This duty of ensuring that pupils learn of the nature of marriage as redefined and its relationship to family life and the bringing up of children could not be avoided by any suggestion that such teaching might be said to be, in terms of 403(1A)(b), 'inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned'.”This means that even if same-sex marriage is contrary to the religious and cultural background of the pupils, they will still have to be taught about it.

Faith schools will not be exempt from teaching same-sex marriage. On 11 December 2012 when Maria Miller, Culture Secretary, introduced the government's measure on same-sex marriage in the House of Commons, she said:“Teachers will continue to be able to describe their own belief that marriage is between a man and a woman while, importantly, acknowledging that there can also be same-sex marriages.” (Hansard, 11 December, col 167)Whatever the ethos of the school, pupils will have to be taught about both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

Teachers will be unable to exercise conscientious objection

It is also the case that teachers will be unable to exercise conscientious objection to teaching same-sex marriage.

Aidan O'Neill QC stated in his legal opinion that if a teacher“refused to obey the otherwise lawful instructions of her employers then this would constitute grounds for her dismissal from employment.”Helen Grant, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Culture Media and Sport, tries to suggest that teachers with a conscientious objection will be accommodated. In a letter dated 19 October 2012, she states: “We would expect that any teacher with concerns about their personal views being in conflict with what they are required to teach would discuss this with their head teacher and reach a mutual understanding on a way forward. There is nothing in the School Teacher's Pay and Conditions Document that sets down what a teacher should or shouldn't teach and it will always be a matter for the head to determine what teachers under his control should be teaching and he/she will have a range of disciplinary measures at their disposal if they are needed including ultimately dismissal.”It is very hard to see how a way forward can be found for a teacher who holds that marriage is a natural institution uniting a man and a woman, and therefore that a same-sex couple’s legally recognised “marriage” is invalid or immoral.

It is clear from Helen Grant’s statement that teachers will be required to teach something about same-sex marriage. It is likely, in our view, that they will be required to say that homosexual unions are equal in some way to man-and-woman marriages. (The government’s principal reason to justify the redefinition of legal marriage is to try to make homosexual couples ‘equal’ to married couples.)

A headteacher would not be able to accommodate a teacher with a conscientious objection because the headteacher would have a legal obligation to ensure that same-sex marriage is taught to pupils. Mrs Grant makes this clear in her letter when she states:“Head teachers and governing bodies will always be expected to be fully aware of their responsibilities under employment law and equalities law when reaching any decision on matters of this nature.”In other words, when the law redefines marriage to include same-sex marriage and schools remain legally obliged to teach pupils about marriage, a headteacher will be required to silence or sack teachers who oppose 'equal' marriage.

Compliance with equality duties

Teaching pupils about same-sex marriage and gay relationships will be underpinned by the statutory obligation all state-maintained schools are under to publish information showing that they are complying with equality duties arising from the Equality Act 2010.

The equality duties relating to “sexual orientation and gender reassignment” as set out in the guidance for schools issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in November 2012, are presented in active terms:“Under the equality duty all schools must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality and foster good relations between lesbian, gay and transsexual pupils and those who do not share those protected characteristics. Schools are required to publish information to demonstrate compliance with this aspect of the equality duty.” (Our emphasis).While it is wrong that any school pupil should be subjected to bullying or discrimination, schools are clearly required to be pro-active in accommodating lesbian, gay and transsexual pupils and will be breaching the law if they don’t say how they are doing this.

These equality duties are effectively requiring schools to promote gay lifestyles and practices.

Effect of legislation in Canada

In Canada, where same-sex marriage was legalised in 2005, the Accepting Schools Act, an anti-bullying law, was passed in June 2012. This law requires all schools to run 'gay-straight alliance' clubs if the students request one.

Such clubs will be used to promote homosexuality in schools. Faith schools in Canada are not exempt.

Although the legal age of consent, in the UK, is 16, you will be aware that prosecutions are rarely brought for under-age sex when the victims are 13-15 year olds. On “equality” grounds, the homosexual abuse of children will be treated in a similar way.

Current moves to teach homosexual practices in schools

There are already moves to bring teaching on homosexuality into schools. For example, the Terrence Higgins Trust (THT), a homosexual charity, has been generously funded by the state to work with pupils age 14 and older in schools in England. In 2011 THT was granted £203,508 to run a peer-led sex education programme in schools and youth clubs. 100 disadvantaged children have been trained to give sex education training to 2,000 further teenagers to deliver sex education in schools.

While much of what can be viewed on the THT website is concerned with support and help for HIV and Aids sufferers, THT also publishes booklets such as “The Bottom Line” and “Below the Belt”. These full colour booklets use pictures of action man dolls to describe a range of gay sexual activity. For example, on page 22 of “Below the Belt” we read, “No one teaches you at school, so just how is it meant to be done? Here are your tips for successful sucking;”. This high-profile charity will have a major opening when schools come under pressure to deliver information about same -sex relationships.

Gay sexual practices are detailed on sexual “health” websites aimed at teenagers. The NHS Warwickshire website “Respect Yourself” contains a “Sextionary” which gives an A to Z of sexual activities from analingus to donkey punch to spit roast to zelphilia. The NHS endorses this website, announcing that it provides“more than just the standard guidance on sexual health.”It is doubtful that such information can be truly classed as health advice. Rimming and fisting, for example, are extremely dangerous. Anal sex is 20 times more risky that vaginal sex, because of the fragile construction of the rectal wall and the very real possibility of tearing the membrane and subsequent leakage back into the blood stream of rectal content which contains high levels of pathogenic organisms. Directing pupils to websites promoting these activities will be seen as evidence that a school is complying with equality duties.

When it becomes mandatory for schools to give equal teaching on same-sex marriage as heterosexual marriage, schools will come under further pressure to teach pupils about gay sex.

Parents and school governors

Schools will also bear the brunt of parents objecting to the teaching of same-sex marriage and other aspects of homosexual life within the national curriculum, for example LGBT history week, from which they are unable to withdraw their children.

Aidan O'Neill QC has confirmed that parents will have “little prospects of success” in challenging schools. Two couples in Massachusetts, David and Tonia Parker and Robert and Robin Wirthlin, made a legal challenge to require schools to notify parents about homosexual teaching and to give parents the right to withdraw their children from such classes. In 2007 their case was dismissed by Chief Judge Mark L. Woolf of the US District Court, who ruled that parents who disagree with what is taught in publicly funded schools have the choice of home schooling or private education.

Once the law is changed, many school governors will be compromised over same-sex marriage. Such governors will be unable to object to teaching on same-sex marriage and the use of materials from organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust.

Saturday, 12 January 2013

SPUC has welcomed the appeal hearings, held this week in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, in the case of two midwifery sisters who are seeking to uphold the right of conscientious objection to abortion.

The case hinges on the extent to which the law protects the right of conscientious objection to abortions performed on labour wards. The hospital accepts that midwives may opt-out of hands-on involvement in the procedures, but holds that midwifery sisters cannot opt-out of their role of “delegation, supervision and support” of midwives carrying out the abortion procedures.

SPUC supports the right of the midwives to opt-out, and is underwriting their legal costs in the case.

The hospital was successful in arguing for this legal position when the case first went to court last year. The case in the appeal court was concerned with the scope of the conscience clause in the Abortion Act 1967.

Brian Napier QC, for Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board, told three judges of the Inner House of the Court of Session that the Board expected midwives to act in accordance with guidance from the Royal College of Midwives.

The Royal College of Midwives is a trade union for midwives. (Not all midwives are members of the union.) The RCM guidance says:

"The RCM believes that the interpretation of the conscientious objection clause should only include direct involvement in the procedure of terminating pregnancy. Thus all midwives should be prepared to care for women before, during and after a termination in a maternity unit under obstetric care."

Counsel for the midwives, Gerry Moynihan QC, argued that the right of conscientious objection encompassed all those who would be part of the team with responsibility for treatment under the Abortion Act.

Judgment is expected in the spring.

People wishing to make donations towards the midwives' legal costs should telephone SPUC on +44 (0)20 7091 7091 or donate online.

I believe that Britain is blessed with some of the finest Catholic priests in the world.

That belief is confirmed by today's story and letter in The Daily Telegraph under the headlines: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, - say 1,000 Catholic priests ... More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

"One of the biggest letters of its type ever written" is also signed by 13 bishops.

I have often mentioned the excellence of Catholic priests in Britain to pro-life colleagues in other parts of the world - and when I describe the support received by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children from Catholic priests for our work, and the support that many priests give to the pro-life and to the pro-family cause generally, my overseas pro-life colleagues acknowledge the force of what I'm saying.

We will also see that support played out through the generous support for SPUC's White Flower appeal in hundreds of churches throughout England and Wales this weekend.

On behalf of all the vulnerable people you seek to protect, Fathers, in all your witness, encouragement, formation and prayers, thank you.

John Smeaton

About Me

I became involved in SPUC after graduating, when I established a branch in south London in 1974. I have worked full-time for SPUC for 39 years. I became chief executive of SPUC in the UK in 1996, having been general secretary since 1978. I was elected vice-president of International Right to Life Federation in 2005. At UN conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul and Rome, I helped coordinate more than 150 pro-life/pro-family groups resulting in pro-life victories in Cairo, Istanbul and Rome. I was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where I graduated in English Language and Literature. I qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. I am married to Josephine. We have a grown-up family and we live in north London.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help to me in researching, writing and producing this blog.

Sign up for email alerts

Twitter @spucprolife

Images

I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.